Skip to main content
10:30 am
best care, intelligence gathered but at the end of the day the legislation is created to minimize for great places liability to people who develop them, design them, build them, and operate them. it was proposed as part of the homeland security act of 2002, its real purpose is to eliminate the exposure that a client would have in the event of an event. it was developed by the department of homeland security and has a federal back bone and it is typically used to foster new anti-terrorism technology and someone has designed something that they think will preclude a terrorist from being successful, it is in the building for the facilities like the transit center to have the opportunity to be designated and certified as a safety act facility. we are on the bleeding edge, no. we are on the leading edge, yes.
10:31 am
the executive director charged the design team and the consultant team to follow best practice and to make sure that this facility was designed in a way that was similar to other significant assets. these are a list of other entitis that have gone about filing for safety acts, we are not the first. but you are certainly on a list with the major players. this was a little bit more information. if you want to obtain safety act designation, there are a bunch of things that you have to do. this is a listing of the enhancements in safety and security that are expected when you are reviewed for safety act designation and certification. i will go through these in more detail. these are the investment areas that the design team was asked to incorporate in the project as a result of the risk and
10:32 am
vulnerable assessment that bob beck mentioned. it was developed by the urs team. and then, subsequently turned over to the pelly clark pelly team and so i will go down this list of individual items as part of the presentation, i simply want to have them here so that you have an understanding that part of the rationale for doing this was to obtain that safety act designation. these are really some of the legal implications that are there so that as you can move forward, and legal counsel can advise you in more detail. but at the end of the day the intent is to put those who have the responsibility for developing the project, funding the project, designing the project, building the project, and operating the project, in a position of less risk. claims can be filed in a federal court. there is a cap on the extent of the file that can be filed.
10:33 am
punitive damages are barred and there are certain terms and conditions regarding the plaintiff's opportunity for recover. i mention this because after the 93 bombing at the world trade center, the port authority of new york was ten years later in the supreme court in new york. through a trial by jury, put in a position of being held accountable for a large percentage of what was then determined to be over a billion dollar claim. so there was a significant interest in the port authority's subsequent to those proceedings and the other agency and entities that i mentioned in the previous slide safety act approval, it was in the hundreds of millions of dollars. so why this project and what is the history? >> there are literally hundreds
10:34 am
of events but i have gone back as a member of the design community, or i have access to information from the federal government through law enforcement and through open source and closed source data, events that have happened. we all know about the 93 bombing at the trade center. but if you look down this list, you will begin to see, in the years 2004, or 5, 6, 8, 10 and 11, that the transit entities in the world have become more significant targets.
10:35 am
>> we have concerned and larger events and at the end of the day we will have people in the park and people shopping in stores and tourists coming to the building and many of features have something other than a event, this is an all-hazard event management strategy. you are probably going to be one of the most if not the most significant transit in the united states, east of or excuse me, west of the mississippi, what does that mean? >> well, there are a series of government agency and design responses. and i think that what is significant to note, is that starting in 1996, which is really not that long ago, the process of the government of the united states becoming more and more involved in developing
10:36 am
standards of practice and documents, honestly the design team is essentially obligated to use as well as the rva team has come into existence, why? why do they continue to evolve? that is simple. they keep current. and we all know that we have ages around the world who we pay the tax dollars for to collect information. >> protective design strategies are enhanced and we need to learn from lessons, what structural engineers and what architects have done on projects to make them safer? you heard him say that in 08 and 09 we were in a conceptual phase and into a schemeatic phase in 2009 and ten. and as the design has emerged so has the information and intelligence and opportunity for the building and protective design standpoint.
10:37 am
there are many other guidelines other than the ones that i mentioned, which get updated almost every year and i listed some of them there, and the building infrastructure and the criteria for creation of buildings without counter terrorism and federal management documents 426 and 452, these are like the tax code, but if you read them and you are obligated to, they outline the process that is used to do an rvi assessment and then the last one is the national institutes of technology they are a group of scientists and engineers who look at tragic events and remember them so that the legacy of what they learned on one project is transferred to another. >> i just may interrupt if you don't mind. i just want to be kog that scent and i know that there are 38 more slides. what is most important to us in this budget update is getting a sense of the costs of each of
10:38 am
the aspects of the package. what is actually mandated? and in order to be, i guess, a safety act project? and the cost of each of those individual packages. >> okay. >> i think that we all understand what the project is, what the implications are and the number of people that may are may not come through. i am going to have a number of questions about that as we month forward, but for me personally that is the most important aspect of this presentation, what we are very concerned about is containing costs. >> okay. >> and we are going to get, we are going to be getting to that. >> i know that it is in the presentation. >> i appreciate tha, but i think that it is important for the public that is viewing the presentation, on-line, that they really have an understanding of this. that is what bob is trying to present, the backdrop for all of this, otherwise without context it would be hard to understand. the various elements as we go into them. >> what i will do chairman kim
10:39 am
is, run through the slide deck prior to the listing of it. and then explain the portions that will be discussed by bob beck and these are the items that we are used to enhance the building and safety and security program in the costs. >> okay. >>ty. thank you. >> why the transit center quickly? i know that question comes up when i have presentations like this, it is probably the largest transit center in the u.s. of its kind. you will have the largest elevated park, and it is a critical multimobile transportation facility. and the capacity of 45 million people a year, it is the center piece of a future san francisco an downtown, it is a major
10:40 am
urban development, this is more of a transit center this is a downtown center that will change the sky line and it will be adjacent to some of the tallest buildings west of the mississippi. these are the attributes that require employing the best practices, these are in large part, the fed spec, justifications, the metrics that when you build a building like this, form the basis for, enhancing the safety and security of the building beyond what you might otherwise do. so, why san francisco? you are the city of the golden gate bridge, you are the city of the transamerica tower and the great sports team and rail cars, but the executive director asked us to look at the future. what will san francisco be like when this transit center is done? >> that will have a new very significant building and a new very significant transit center and if you look at that when we are finished that is the new
10:41 am
san francisco. >> this is a new downtown region. and so, what we are really talking about in the rva and what we are asking the design team to do is protect the final build-out. what was the tjfpa response to the request for the excuse me the rva. mention this safety and security part of the program from its inception. they have retained a series of world class design and engineering risk professional and they were peer reviews that were engaged in by the individuals for the extreme knowledge and the explosive management and seismic management, this is not a single individual or a single firm's recommendation. i'm a spoke man for many, many people and many, many organizations. and it used a rigorous government best practice process the fema documentation, and this is the process used and advocated for by the federal government. and it is a highly structured process and only can be
10:42 am
successful if knowledgeable people were involved in it and that is what was done. so trying to move into that area, the original assessment was performed in 09 and there was an update done in 2011 and 12. it addressed the building, what does that mean? >> we had a conceptual design, you only know the building to the extent that the building was evolved at that point. the intent was to look at the design as it evolved federal agency and our natural critical engagement and alcohol
10:43 am
and tobacco and firearms and because we have threats and the list goes on and on. please note that we had not let the san francisco fire departments and the fung police department so we don't just have a washington perspective on this. >> it is the correct diligent approach for the significance and it provides an appropriate level of agency consciousness to respond to the events with the appropriate designed standards. this is another list, and i am going to bypass this, this is simply more information about the standards of care and practice. no facility can be risk free. we need to balance the risk mission, you will have buses, trains, tourists, members of the public on the park. we need to remember that this facility was created for those reasons but we need to create safe facility for that to
10:44 am
happen and so the rva comes up with and now we are getting to the heart of the matter, design, guidance, period. this criteria, out of the rva, that i identified what needs to be done. so, this is essential and rationale for doing the work. there was sensitive in the approach and established a very clear design guidance criteria and insures a multidiscipline approach and i am going to explain to you many of the investments that were made in the building that are the basis of the original costs and what is important to understand is that it is not just a strong structure. it is not just a robust facade.
10:45 am
it is a series of integral elements of the building that involve all of the engineering disciplines, and so the rva process has recommendations for all of those disciplines. and it provides a con census is.
10:46 am
these are the categoris that represent the strategis for building safety and security to obtain the safety act approval to make a great, safe and secure facility and to meet the standard of secure expected by agencies that will be responsible for you having some defensable position. bus and train, fire management. i will describe what i mean by that. we have slides for each one of these and i am clear and we want to be sure that we kept the building free from individuals and vehicles that did not belong there. we need to have absolute clear radio for cellular and mass communication. the building is characterized by a fair amount of glazing, the glass can be a hazardous material and our structural systems need to presift, explosive events and significant fires, trains and
10:47 am
buses burn with extreme heat. we need to obtain the pathways that we found in new york and elsewhere if you can't the folks out of the building and can't get the responsers in, it is a very bad day. we have situatal awareness, we need to know what is happening, you cannot respond to what you do not or are not aware of. >> we have to be aware of air quality and chemical and nuclear releases. and so let's start out with our first area of vinestment. in the conceptual design. we had a building that had shape and form. in order to know exactly what you need to do to reduce a significant fire you engage in highly sophisticated computer modeling. >> there is an image on the bottom of this which gives you an example of the computer model that was one once it was
10:48 am
advanced enough which was in the final phase, and what we found was there were opportunities to increase the smoke detection, fire, detection and the fire suppression and smoke control systems. there were enhancements made in the mechanical system to pressurize the stairwells so that the people could get out and the responders could get in. the fire department and the subject matter experts agreed that the bus fires now that they could be modeled in this more clearly understood, building design would benefit from the enhanced sprinkler and suppression system. this was all inform by the san francisco fire department and the national rail provider and what they have done for fires and buildings. the national fire protection association, which is the defaco expert and the fire experts. >> could you let us know the cost of each one of these? >> mr. beck has that information i'm setting the stage and bob, i believe yes?
10:49 am
you will be doing that. >> yes, sir. >> and i believe that those costs are broken out by each one of these categories. >> that in our presentation? the costs broken up by category? >> i actually did not see it when i looked through it last night. i saw percentages. and i know... >> yeah, you are correct. they are percentages my percentages that is of a 64 million dollar estimated total cost and so, if for that i can. >> so everything in this presentation about safety, adds up to $64 million in added costs, >> $64.3, yes. >> what was the $74 million that i saw prior? >> we some preliminary information that we provided to
10:50 am
the board members, there was a 74 million figure and identifying in the costs there were costs that could be deferred until phase two when we filled out the rail levels and so we are not recommending implementing those at this time. >> additional costs to what we had initially. what was the initial cost? >> some of these are difficult to identify as a total cost, when we did the original rva, we identified some 15 million dollars in enhancements at that time, to the estimates that we were previously carrying. but, many of these costs are not impacts to a security
10:51 am
budget per se for instance, the increasing in the glazing cost, is not carried as a, it was not a security cost estimate for glazing. but, the cost that is estimated here relative to glazing, represents about an 18 percent uptick on the total glazing costs of the building. >> does that mean that it is outside of the 64. well, it is, the up-tick in the glazing costs is captured here as part of that. but what i am saying is that there is not necessarily a base line security estimate that this 64 can be compared directly with because, many of these costs are enhancements or redundancy to the base electrical system for the
10:52 am
building, the base glazing system for the building and the structural system for the building. what is the protection for glazing system? what is that? >> so, the glazing systems, the glass, throughout the building. >> oh,. >> as mr. ducebella mentioned, there is... >> actually we have a slide on that or i could go through that in detail if you like. >> if you just give it to me. >> it is about making sure that the glass does not participate in becoming a hazard to people inside or around the transit center in the event of something occurs. >> and so, >> when you build many things with kind of resistant glass to
10:53 am
start with, >> yeah. you start off with a basic tempered glass system. but this is layers lamination in the glass to make it safer and more secure. >> as you go through each piece could you give us a dollar amount? it would be helpful? >> i will have that when i speak to the distribution. >> all right, thank you. >> what i will try to do is be as explainable because there is this technology mystery because i can appreciate the concern about using buzz words i will explain these in more detail.
10:54 am
the second area of investment is managing a vehicular threat. as the design progressed and we understood the location of the building columns and the opportunity to place what you see in the slide as bolards around the building, we were capable of running what we called computer models on different sizes and types of vehicles, approaching the building at different speeds. this is a highly informed process and it allows you to determine how effective a planter would be. what we found is that moving it out from the building provided an increase in explosive event protection and that was deemed by the structural engineers to be very important for the building to be robust from an explosive event and so these computer-based models allowed us to identify the specific bolard design. and that, then, provided for more bolards as you take a
10:55 am
circle and increase it you get more of them and some of them became more robust and capable. and the next area of investment was communications and incident response, in the conceptual design phase, you know that you will have a radio communication system, you know that you will have a paging system. as the engineers began to layout the cabling for the systems it was clear that there were opportunities for the system to have a potential point of vunerbility. to make it robust,
10:56 am
there are technologies to make that happen. enter agency five years ago was an interesting concept but more difficult to achieve. and looking forward five years, to a transit center that is going to open in 2017, additional and more robust infrastructure was proposed to a building in order to provide a future proofing for that capbility. it does not do a great deal of good to have a lot of information and if that location is compromised your opportunity to manage an incident is reduced. so the recommendation came to provide a back up capbility for the security operation center. and a back up capbility for the fire command center. this is a four-block long building, and it is exceptionally large in terms of population, so the
10:57 am
determination was made redundancy and security and fire operations was critical. mass notification, audible and visual. it is robust means that it carries five feet of dirt on the top and designed and aten you ate radio signaling. you know that you will have a paging system but you don't have all of the information that you need to model it. these hor sonal graphs represent computer based models that show how the final actual design at about 90 percent, 95 percent would have performed.
10:58 am
and opportunities exists. those changes are included as part of this request for additional fund,al location. >> the glazing systems it has an extensive amount of glazing you will see on the left and an elevation of the grand hall. it is a glass, this is glass and metal that are held together to form essentially a curtain wall as a grand skylight and it has a great glass roof which is a glass floor. all of those participate potentially of create ago transit center of transparent. but under the loading or explosive events, we found that through modeling them, once the design was mature, the changes in the glazing and the thickness and the interlayers and the retention of the glazing and the support of the glazing that modifications were
10:59 am
necessary based on a final design which is the extent of design that you need to have in order to model. this does not have all of the connections detailed and what you will do is subject the final structural design as it advances and matures to computer analysis. you see on the right, one of the models that was run and this informs the changes in the structure and the inclusion in the columns and the jacketing of the columns with steel and increased in the types of welding or welding techniques and those are again part of the security investment enhancement. we did not have, in the conceptual design phase, as i

February 14, 2013 10:30am-11:00am PST

TOPIC FREQUENCY San Francisco 5, Rva 3, New York 3, Bob 2, Bob Beck 2, Mississippi 2, Mr. Beck 1, Mr. Ducebella 1, Pelly Clark Pelly 1, Capbility 1, Bolards 1, The Future 1, Washington 1, Glazing System 1, Fema 1, Urs Team 1, Transamerica 1
Network SFGTV2
Duration 00:30:00
Scanned in San Francisco, CA, USA
Source Comcast Cable
Tuner Channel 24 (225 MHz)
Video Codec mpeg2video
Audio Cocec ac3
Pixel width 544
Pixel height 480
Sponsor Internet Archive
Audio/Visual sound, color